Cycling UK Forum

I'm just catching up on threads after being away from the forum for two weeks.
Its a tragedy someone was killed in such circumstances but hadly surprising,We've been to Majorca for a two week holiday with the tandem,generally the roads are far better maintained than in the UK but what impressed me more was the standard of driving which was far and away better,drivers being far more courtious and patient than here.

To get to the point of my post,today was the first day out for a ride since we came home.When on a stretch of road that has been deteriating for about 18months or more I found a small section of some three hundred metres so bad on my side of the white line I had to ride in the middle of the road. I wasn't hanging around at about 20mph when suddenly just as I was just clearing the bad section and about to move back to the left side of the carriageway, from seemingly nowhere a Toyota LandCruiser overtook me on the inside at about 40mph (we were in a 30mph zone) I was so shocked I didn't get his reg no.

It was perfectly obvious to any sane human being as to why I was in the middle of the road,it was also obvious to any sane human being that at sometime within the next few seconds I was about to move back over to the left side of the road again,there were no driveways,side roads or places to turn off so the driver couldn't think i was about to turn off without signaling,so why would anyone make such a manouvre? At this point I'd like to mention that on the continent most drivers(certainly in Italy and also we also found in Majorca too)beep the horn on approaching cyclists if they think you're unaware of them.

I have to say that the standard of driving in the UK IMO is deteriating faster than the road surfaces,but more than that, there seems to be an anti cycling element of drivers out there that just don't care for anyone but themselves and actually take pleasure out of frightening other road users,its a sad way to enjoy life IMO.

To think that a soldier is safer on the battlefield than on our roads is a very bad state of affairs.

All goes to show that you're probably safer cycling smack in the middle of the lane?

If the roads get any worse we will need wheels like this soon:

Hi R2 welcome back to Blighty, bad roads, inconsiderate drivers and snow!

Back on topic, the only reason I can see of such a sensationalist headline, is that hopefully it will draw attention to the plight and difficulty of cyclists on the awful roads in this country. Alas I fear it will be forgotten as quickly as tomorrow's chips, in the brain of mr. average road driver.

I think the time has come for regular compulsary driver retesting and retrainning.
Possibly every 10 years of so in addition to this initial driver trainning and test should include skid pan driving and tuition on other road hassards and conditions cyclists, horses, runners, snow, fog, rain and what to do in the event of an accident.
Maybe an extra lesson in how to switch off the fog light too.
I did HGV trainning two years ago, it was a real eye opener. I knew that over 20 years of bad driving habits would have formed but I was surprised at how many things I didn't do or had miss conceptions about.
All drivers should undergo trainning and retesting at regular intervals through their life.

eileithyia wrote:Hi R2 welcome back to Blighty, bad roads, inconsiderate drivers and snow!

Back on topic, the only reason I can see of such a sensationalist headline, is that hopefully it will draw attention to the plight and difficulty of cyclists on the awful roads in this country. Alas I fear it will be forgotten as quickly as tomorrow's chips, in the brain of mr. average road driver.

Only if the nazi papers recognise the fact that , in this case, a man was killed by a lorry, the pot hole was simply there. ad the lorry driver followed the highway code the man would be alive regardless of the road surface state.

There we go jumping to conclusions, do we irrefutably know that the lorry driver was contravening the highway code.
We could just as easily say, if the pothole was not there the cyclist would not need to "swerve" into the path of the lorry, or thrown off his bike into the path of the lorry. But we do not know if that happened either.

The irony of this is this; For a while now I have been saying if we were not spending millions of pounds on a fighting force in Afghanistan, then just maybe there might be a bit more money in the coffers to provide some decent road surfaces and improving our road infrastructure which is sadly falling into ruin due to repeated lack of investment. Then just maybe a tragedy such as this would have been avoided.

eileithyia wrote:The irony of this is this; For a while now I have been saying if we were not spending millions of pounds on a fighting force in Afghanistan, then just maybe there might be a bit more money in the coffers to provide some decent road surfaces and improving our road infrastructure which is sadly falling into ruin due to repeated lack of investment. Then just maybe a tragedy such as this would have been avoided.

Amen.
Also interesting to note that the highway authorities repair is very bodged; the Sun's picture showing a very sunken drain cover with non-standard grid bars and the tarmac already breaking up on the impact side
Who's next

eileithyia wrote:The irony of this is this; For a while now I have been saying if we were not spending millions of pounds on a fighting force in Afghanistan, then just maybe there might be a bit more money in the coffers to provide some decent road surfaces and improving our road infrastructure which is sadly falling into ruin due to repeated lack of investment. Then just maybe a tragedy such as this would have been avoided.

Jumping to conclusions?

If we hadn't been spending the money on Afghanistan then we'd have slightly smaller government borrowing - the emphasis on 'slightly'.

As with all things people want it all ways. Ask people if they would like to see money spent on the upkeep of the roads and most will say "yes", ask them if they'd be prepared to see taxes rise to pay for it and most will say "no".
And it's not just roads, virtually every aspect of life - we moan like there's no tomorrow when it comes to having to pay for it and in response governments and councils cut costs and then we moan about the actions they take.
Look at the state of the country at the moment - you don't see any political party talking about increasing direct taxation do you?

eileithyia wrote:There we go jumping to conclusions, do we irrefutably know that the lorry driver was contravening the highway code.

Jumping to completely accurate conclusions, we do irrefutably know the lorry driver was contravening at least 3 rules:

213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

163

Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car

165

You MUST NOT overtake

* if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070190

eileithyia wrote:Back on topic, the only reason I can see of such a sensationalist headline, is that hopefully it will draw attention to the plight and difficulty of cyclists on the awful roads in this country. Alas I fear it will be forgotten as quickly as tomorrow's chips, in the brain of mr. average road driver.

The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch owns Sky. He also backs the Tories for Government. The Tories have pledge to dismantle the BBC. Sky is happy, as they get to run Fox News (UK). Does the article have any political overtones, does the article mirror the 'Broken Britain' slogan of the Tories ?

I really doubt it's to do with cyclists, the article is more about the state of the roads. the article talks about a 'national outcry', but it's potholes not cycle deaths. in fact, they don't mention cycle deaths in general.

I am not sure I said that the article would draw attention to cycle deaths but that it might draw attention to the plight of cycling on our potholed roads.
Alas the average Sun reader will be far more concerned with Rooney's ankle by now.
As for drawing conclusions, do we really believe everything we read in a rag such as the Sun, or is it just that it suits our needs on this occasion.
The code is often just that, a code of conduct.

What does "Give......as much space as you would a car" mean? Overtake, assuming the vulnerable road user is the size of a car and therefore give as much road width as would be required to overtake a car. Or does it mean overtake leaving only the same amount of space between you and the other user as you would between you and a car? The wording is totally ambiguous.


I have already said on a personal note, If I was riding that road regularly I would be aware of the presence of the pothole, any avoiding action would be taken in consideration of other traffic around me, if I was approaching such a hazard in the dark with a lorry approaching I would consider; The lorry driver may not be able to see the pothole (due to positioning of my self, darkness etc), and may not be aware i would be likely to swerve. Indeed I would be weighing up the driver's approach and adjusting my speed to pull out only after he had passed, i am really not sure I would feel safe swerving around a pothole on a narrowish(?) road in the dark with an approaching lorry.
Vulnerable, yes we are. Respect, yes we should receive respect. But respect sometimes has to be mutual and we should also be aware of some of the difficulties faced by other road users.

If a car driver speeds up to a stationary car in front of it, fails to brake in time and collides then it is the rear car drivers fault isn't it - no arguments I imagine.

If a cyclist is riding along a road and suddenly has to swerve to avoid a pothole or other serious defect in the road as a result causes an accident then surely the cyclist is to blame in the same way as the car driver previously mentioned. Both have not paid sufficient attention or driven/ridden appropriately to the conditions. The state of the road may be viewed as a contributory factor in the collision but it is not the cause. A cyclist is not entitled to swerve around the road, avoiding obstacles without first ensuring that it is safe to do so

If the cyclist is a soldier who has served in Afghanistan well that simply makes him a less than careful cyclist who has served in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the Sun headline should have read "Biker Bloke Balls-up"

Actually, you are entitled to make your way along the road avoiding obstacles... that's why the onus is on the following driver only to overtake when safe to do so, not on you to crash so as to prevent them the slight inconvenience of having to wait a moment.

I agree it's small consolation when you've been flattened, but still. It's bad enough that drivers don't understand the law, we should make more of an effort not to perpetuate myths.

EdinburghFixed wrote:Actually, you are entitled to make your way along the road avoiding obstacles... that's why the onus is on the following driver only to overtake when safe to do so, not on you to crash so as to prevent them the slight inconvenience of having to wait a moment.

Agreed - my point is that forward observation would/may avoid the need for sudden deviations which following traffic are unprepared for and unable to respond to

mw3230 wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:Actually, you are entitled to make your way along the road avoiding obstacles... that's why the onus is on the following driver only to overtake when safe to do so, not on you to crash so as to prevent them the slight inconvenience of having to wait a moment.

Agreed - my point is that forward observation would/may avoid the need for sudden deviations which following traffic are unprepared for and unable to respond to

You've not cycled down past Liverpool airport have you? There is no straight route past the pot holes - you have to continually adjust your path.